XMR vs DRK

[illodin]

If the spork key was programmed to last only x number of blocks after a hardfork, like a week or so, would that ease the concerns?

[1714712835]

1714712835

[1714712835]

1714712835

[othe]

Y'all see Monero is like flying cars. They sound great! I mean you don't have to sit in traffic, you can go places faster and aren't limited by roads.

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

So I don't give a flying mongoose about any whitepaper or promises until it's easy to use and widespread. Monero has had a year to do this and it not anywhere near either of these goals.

Lastly if the Dark/Dash tech doesn't work then there would be a ton of money made by anybody who could prove that to the cryptocurrency community, so the fact that after months no one has done so is strong proof that the technology is solid.

mymonero.com, takes 3 minutes max to get started with Monero.

Its way easier than using darkcoin.

What are you talking about?

[illodin]

It boggles my mind that Evan didn't design the protocol around micropayment channels, where every full node could be incentivised to mix transactions or vote on InstantX transactions or whatever. It would make the anonymity set so much larger.

Perhaps he thought it's better to make sybil attacks harder. It's basically free to launch as many full nodes as required.

He may have thought that (I'm not sure I buy it) but it doesn't work, because there is still no irrevocable cost incurred for bad behavior. If masternodes are profitable then the bad ones are more profitable as the good ones. In a competitive market this will mean that only the bad ones are profitable.

The argument about "losing the value of your coins" doesn't work because it make a few false assumptions including that cheating leads to total collapse and the inability to hedge with derivatives. Both of these and certainly the second only apply in an immature cryptocurrency toy, not in a scaled up system.

Are you talking about DDoS attacks?

[illodin]

How many full nodes there are currently? What is the incentive to run one? What if they are DDoS'ed?

Is the bolded part a problem for privacy?

Are we talking about Monero, or in JustusRanvier's proposal?

Bloom filters are specifically designed not to sufficiently compromise privacy. They're used for SPV in Bitcoin, where you tell a full node a range of addresses you're "interested in", and it tells you about any transactions that come in to those. You're going to get a bunch of false positives, but not enough to care about. You can also still maintain a degree of consensus by connecting to multiple nodes and fetching block headers from them, verifying the PoW across the header, and then submitting the bloom filter to a set of seemingly honest nodes you find.

Perhaps he thought it's better to make sybil attacks harder. It's basically free to launch as many full nodes as required.

You can't Sybil attack JustusRanvier's model, because the micropayment happens per-action and between peers. Running a series of sock-puppet nodes doesn't help you, because your sock-puppets have to provide the same services as a full node to get paid. May as well just run a bunch of full nodes in VMs then (which would massively assist the network if every node was mixing and getting paid for it via micropayment channels).

I don't know what this JustusRanvier's model/proposal is. But if you can start as many full nodes as you please how does providing service with them prevent the nodes from spying?

[fluffypony]

but there wasn't a premine....there is endless moaning and tired debate about 'instamine' if that's what you mean.

I don't want to get caught up in a discussion of semantics, but in the first 32 hours a block was solved every 26.29 seconds instead of every 150 seconds, and the block reward was either 500 DRK or 277 DRK. It looks like the current block reward is under 5 DRK.

It was acknowledged immediately as accidental, so why not just relaunch with fixed code?

[ArticMine]

If the spork key was programmed to last only x number of blocks after a hardfork, like a week or so, would that ease the concerns?

It is a very dangerous precedent and a slippery slope. Of course if one were program the spork key to last for only a week it would mitigate the concerns, but not eliminate them.

Edit: As for FinCEN, I do not know their position on: I am an MSB, but only for a week at a time.

[Sapereaude]

Y'all see Monero is like flying cars. They sound great! I mean you don't have to sit in traffic, you can go places faster and aren't limited by roads.

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

So I don't give a flying mongoose about any whitepaper or promises until it's easy to use and widespread. Monero has had a year to do this and it not anywhere near either of these goals.

Lastly if the Dark/Dash tech doesn't work then there would be a ton of money made by anybody who could prove that to the cryptocurrency community, so the fact that after months no one has done so is strong proof that the technology is solid.

I will bet you $500 that a blind test with a non-technical person will have them up and running and working with MyMonero faster and easier than on the DarkDashcoin wallet.

And before you throw a little tantrum, we've openly acknowledged that MyMonero is the stop-gap solution until we have built the foundation necessary to support a core GUI. So let's compare Apples with Packard Bells, shall we?

That is exactly my point a year later Monero only has a stop-gap solution... and promises.

[othe]

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

I will bet you $500 that a blind test with a non-technical person will have them up and running and working with MyMonero faster and easier than on the DarkDashcoin wallet.

And before you throw a little tantrum, we've openly acknowledged that MyMonero is the stop-gap solution until we have built the foundation necessary to support a core GUI. So let's compare Apples with Packard Bells, shall we?

That is exactly my point a year later Monero only has a stop-gap solution... and promises.

Our stop-gap solution is way better than your so called real solution, i can even send Monero with mixins on my mobile phone.

Sorry that we don't market our stuff as perfect in a misleading way like drk does it. bazinga.

please stop the own goals, its getting too easy.

[majamina]

Darkcoin has a ton of bloat. In fact, if you compare a set of DarkSend transactions with a Monero transaction at a high mixin of, say, 20 you will notice that Monero's reduced scripting size makes it quite a bit smaller. If Darkcoin users start using DarkSend all the time instead of just occasionally you will experience phenomenal bloat.

interesting point, i will research this.

Just like GreenAddress it still requires trust, and it's still open to malleability attacks.

explain how it requires trust? my understanding is that masternodes are randomly selected, there is no way of knowhing which nodes will be selected, so an attacker has an unrealistic chance of owning the correct nodes required to intercept the transaction lock...

I don't think you understand what "trustless" means. Without "trustless"-ness a cryptocurrency is neither safe nor fungible. Bitcoin is being picked up by forward-thinking institutions and corporations because they understand this trustless nature. They would never trust something like this where someone else controls a kill switch, not when they have a trustless alternative.

i understand your point but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. Bitcoin has problems with mining share undermining it's trustless nature which pose a far greater threat than Evan's ability to roll back new features. The control he has is for the security of the coin and investors realise that even though opponents, such as yourself, try to make out otherwise.

[fluffypony]

I don't know what this JustusRanvier's model/proposal is. But if you can start as many full nodes as you please how does providing service with them prevent the nodes from spying?

Here: https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Nobody reads this stuff (until some altcoin rips off the idea and pretends they invented it) so I'll just copy-paste the relevant bits:

If we’re going to have a free market for services between nodes on the Bitcoin P2P network, we need a mechanism via which the nodes can pay each other. This mechanism exists in Bitcoin now, and it’s called micropayment channels. Any two nodes can connect and they have this mechanism via which, if they can agree on who owes what to whom, they can construct a payment and they can adjust that payment as rapidly as they need to and settle it infrequently on the Bitcoin block chain. That’s the bare technical requirement to add price discovery because it provides a method for nodes to pay each other.

The next thing we need to do is to figure out the services that market participants will buy and sell and how they’ll decide what to pay or charge. To figure this out, let’s look at the three types of participants in the market, which are:

Relay Node Operators – Any entity who runs a fully-validating Bitcoin node in the relay network.
Miners – Solo miners or mining pool operators who create and broadcast blocks.
Users – People who hold and spend Bitcoin. For this discussion we’ll assume that most users are running light (SPV) clients.
By considering the needs of each participant, we can enumerate the types of services that each type of participant may want to buy or sell. For simplicity, we’ve assumed the direction of payment. However, we can’t actually predict whether the prices will be positive or negative. For example, we may assume that users will pay relay node operators to route their outgoing payments. In reality, the reverse could happen and relay node operators could end up paying users to get their outgoing payment information. In the latter case, the user would “pay” a negative rate, which means that they would earn compensation from a relay node operator. To understand the true directionality of payment, we need price discovery to begin among all market participants.

The following is a list of services that each type of participant could buy or sell in a free market payment system built into the Bitcoin P2P network.

Relay node operators would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy and sell unmined transactions in a resale market with other relay node operators
• Sell unmined transactions to miners
• Sell the routing of outgoing blocks to miners
• Sell balance information to users
• Sell the routing of outgoing payments to users
• Sell the notification of incoming payments to users

Miners would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy unmined transactions from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing blocks from relay node operators
• Sell the inclusion of transactions in outgoing blocks to users

Users have no services to offer, so they would likely be buyers. They could:

• Buy balance information from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing payments from relay node operators
• Buy the notification of incoming payments from relay node operators
• Buy the inclusion of their transactions in outgoing blocks from miners

For this marketplace of services between relay node operators, miners, and users to work, it would need to be deployed by the whole network. The users would need to use clients that know how to pay for the services they need access to. The miners would need their clients that interfaced with the network to be payment aware. The relay node operators would sell their services to customers willing to pay for it instead of being forced to donate their bandwidth and hardware to the network without compensation.

Once you have this kind of free market payment system, we could remove the block size limit and uncap the growth potential of Bitcoin. We’d also prevent an oligopoly of relay node operators from gaining controlling or censoring the Bitcoin relay network because the growth in the usage of the Bitcoin network would automatically bring with it the increased financial resources needed to pay for that growth.

You could easily add CoinJoin mixing to the list of services, and given that every full node would participate you'd have a massive global anonymity set. Nodes could spy as much as they want, but in order to gain any useful information they'd have to pay for the data via the micropayment payment channels, so monitoring the network would be VERY expensive, prohibitively so.

[5w00p]

That is exactly my point a year later Monero only has a stop-gap solution... and promises.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience is a virtue. Good things come to those who wait.

I would rather wait for a masterpiece from a genius painter than have 100 or a 1000 or a A MILLION sloppy hackjobs from an average artist in the meantime.

[majamina]

but there wasn't a premine....there is endless moaning and tired debate about 'instamine' if that's what you mean.

I don't want to get caught up in a discussion of semantics, but in the first 32 hours a block was solved every 26.29 seconds instead of every 150 seconds, and the block reward was either 500 DRK or 277 DRK. It looks like the current block reward is under 5 DRK.

It was acknowledged immediately as accidental, so why not just relaunch with fixed code?

dunno, i think he did relaunch once and nobody really gave a fuck....second time he just ran with it....still nobody gave a fuck.

only now people give a fuck, cos DRK is getting big...

of course, anyone could have bought or mined plentiful DRK for dust, for months, after the fucked up launch.

personally i can't decide whether the initial distribution was pre-meditated - perhaps it was, but it doesn't really affect my view of DRK....it's still a good coin with a great dev who seems to be delivering...

[Brilliantrocket]

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense. The team is infected with this misguided sense of "fairness" or similar garbage ideals. You can see the manifestation of this idiocy in Monero's emission. Among the worst I've ever seen. Instead of releasing quickly, and thus having low inflation, Monero releases over about 4 years, dramatically limiting returns.

The developers don't realize that very few people make investment decisions based on emission schedules. If you need evidence, look at how Darkcoin is rising as you guys spread the news of the instamine! Is there any more obvious way to beat it into your heads that people don't care?

[alz]

Our stop-gap solution is way better than your so called real solution, i can even send Monero with mixins on my mobile phone.

Sorry that we don't market our stuff as perfect in a misleading way like drk does it. bazinga.

please stop the own goals, its getting too easy.

This is representative of the kind of childish ranting we have come to expect from large portions of the XMR community....
even the "devs" are jumping up and down like spoiled children!

There will not be any proper debate under these conditions and its obviously turning investors off of Monero in droves if you look at the market data.

[alz]

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense. The team is infected with this misguided sense of "fairness" or similar garbage ideals. You can see the manifestation of this idiocy in Monero's emission. Among the worst I've ever seen. Instead of releasing quickly, and thus having low inflation, Monero releases over about 4 years, dramatically limiting returns.

The developers don't realize that very few people make investment decisions based on emission schedules. If you need evidence, look at how Darkcoin is rising as you guys spread the news of the instamine! Is there any more obvious way to beat it into your heads that people don't care?

Totally agree see my post under yours!

all this ugly ranting from the XMR peeps looks fucking horrendous to any potential investors.

[majamina]

DRK has good features, but XMR people just want to attack them and never provide a balanced view. I support both coins and try to have a balanced view....more of that needed here I think if crypto is going to go mainstream.

Why should the view be balanced when the arguments are clearly so lopsided? Should Bitcoin vs litecoin or dogecoin be looked at as equal?

I am not a computer expert, far from it actually. I can't look at code myself to evaluate it in any meaningful way. I basically have to rely on reading other people's opinions and arguements and the overwhelming majority of comments from people whose opinions deserve any respect are very negative towards darkcoin and positive towards monero.

You can't just say "well nobody has broken it yet so it must work well". That doesn't cut it for me. I design medical devices for a living so I will put it into an analogy that makes sense to me. Is a medical device considered safe and effect until it kills somebody or is it safe and effect when it has been proven to be outside of a clinical situation?

all fair points, I just see a good working product in DRK and no breakages despite god knows how much effort being mounted against it. geeez, if people will spend 8 hours a day trolling against it you can bet there's some pretty hefty effort going into finding vulnerabilities.

I invested in DRK with an XMR hedge because I figured Evan was more delivery-focused than the XMR guys who look to be more waffle focused. So far this is working out as a good decision, but I'm open to change my mind...

[illodin]

but there wasn't a premine....there is endless moaning and tired debate about 'instamine' if that's what you mean.

I don't want to get caught up in a discussion of semantics, but in the first 32 hours a block was solved every 26.29 seconds instead of every 150 seconds, and the block reward was either 500 DRK or 277 DRK. It looks like the current block reward is under 5 DRK.

It was acknowledged immediately as accidental, so why not just relaunch with fixed code?

I believe it already had launched twice, and maybe Evan just wanted to get it over with. He can be quite impulsive and reckless when he releases stuff, as the test team can attest.

[illodin]

I don't know what this JustusRanvier's model/proposal is. But if you can start as many full nodes as you please how does providing service with them prevent the nodes from spying?

Here: https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Nobody reads this stuff (until some altcoin rips off the idea and pretends they invented it) so I'll just copy-paste the relevant bits:

If we’re going to have a free market for services between nodes on the Bitcoin P2P network, we need a mechanism via which the nodes can pay each other. This mechanism exists in Bitcoin now, and it’s called micropayment channels. Any two nodes can connect and they have this mechanism via which, if they can agree on who owes what to whom, they can construct a payment and they can adjust that payment as rapidly as they need to and settle it infrequently on the Bitcoin block chain. That’s the bare technical requirement to add price discovery because it provides a method for nodes to pay each other.

The next thing we need to do is to figure out the services that market participants will buy and sell and how they’ll decide what to pay or charge. To figure this out, let’s look at the three types of participants in the market, which are:

Relay Node Operators – Any entity who runs a fully-validating Bitcoin node in the relay network.
Miners – Solo miners or mining pool operators who create and broadcast blocks.
Users – People who hold and spend Bitcoin. For this discussion we’ll assume that most users are running light (SPV) clients.
By considering the needs of each participant, we can enumerate the types of services that each type of participant may want to buy or sell. For simplicity, we’ve assumed the direction of payment. However, we can’t actually predict whether the prices will be positive or negative. For example, we may assume that users will pay relay node operators to route their outgoing payments. In reality, the reverse could happen and relay node operators could end up paying users to get their outgoing payment information. In the latter case, the user would “pay” a negative rate, which means that they would earn compensation from a relay node operator. To understand the true directionality of payment, we need price discovery to begin among all market participants.

The following is a list of services that each type of participant could buy or sell in a free market payment system built into the Bitcoin P2P network.

Relay node operators would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy and sell unmined transactions in a resale market with other relay node operators
• Sell unmined transactions to miners
• Sell the routing of outgoing blocks to miners
• Sell balance information to users
• Sell the routing of outgoing payments to users
• Sell the notification of incoming payments to users

Miners would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy unmined transactions from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing blocks from relay node operators
• Sell the inclusion of transactions in outgoing blocks to users

Users have no services to offer, so they would likely be buyers. They could:

• Buy balance information from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing payments from relay node operators
• Buy the notification of incoming payments from relay node operators
• Buy the inclusion of their transactions in outgoing blocks from miners

For this marketplace of services between relay node operators, miners, and users to work, it would need to be deployed by the whole network. The users would need to use clients that know how to pay for the services they need access to. The miners would need their clients that interfaced with the network to be payment aware. The relay node operators would sell their services to customers willing to pay for it instead of being forced to donate their bandwidth and hardware to the network without compensation.

Once you have this kind of free market payment system, we could remove the block size limit and uncap the growth potential of Bitcoin. We’d also prevent an oligopoly of relay node operators from gaining controlling or censoring the Bitcoin relay network because the growth in the usage of the Bitcoin network would automatically bring with it the increased financial resources needed to pay for that growth.

You could easily add CoinJoin mixing to the list of services, and given that every full node would participate you'd have a massive global anonymity set. Nodes could spy as much as they want, but in order to gain any useful information they'd have to pay for the data via the micropayment payment channels, so monitoring the network would be VERY expensive, prohibitively so.

I lack the expertise to digest all of that right now, but can't you DDoS the other full nodes and get the market to yourself?

[smooth]

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense.

If it were a business your opinion on the matter of our "business sense" might count for something, but it isn't and it isn't trying to be one either. You might reconsider your statement in light of that. I have a pretty good idea you have no clue what you are talking about.

[othe]

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense. The team is infected with this misguided sense of "fairness" or similar garbage ideals. You can see the manifestation of this idiocy in Monero's emission. Among the worst I've ever seen. Instead of releasing quickly, and thus having low inflation, Monero releases over about 4 years, dramatically limiting returns.

The developers don't realize that very few people make investment decisions based on emission schedules. If you need evidence, look at how Darkcoin is rising as you guys spread the news of the instamine! Is there any more obvious way to beat it into your heads that people don't care?

Monero isn't a get rich quick sheme - and we have a tail emission, it will never be fully mined...

There have been 1.5 mio DRK mined on the first day (or even more) and now your emission shedule is 5/drk per block where 30% (??) go to the masternodes, hypocrite.

You mean scammers don't give a fuck about the emission? that might be and prolly is true. There are no serious investors like Roger Ver in Darkcoin (or risto).

This is representative of the kind of childish ranting we have come to expect from large portions of the XMR community....
even the "devs" are jumping up and down like spoiled children!

Just correcting the bullshit lies you are spreading over and over again.
The market data says +136% over the last 30 days, what u talk about? U cant compare it anyway, our coins aren't locked in masternodes and there's plenty of mining.
The longer the price stays down the better for the ones who want to grab a few.